ABF power

A real corrected 120 at the wheels. Guestimate.

One with a remapped OEM ECU is meant to give 170-180bhp, the standard inlet system isn't particularily restrictive so you'd probably get the same with the megasquirt. A bit of porting and a decent pair of cams should get you to

200bhp, much more gets expensive due to the poor design of the cylinder head compared to the Vauxhall and Peugeot 16V cylinder heads of the time.

Not really. The Corsa GSi C16XE engine was producing 150bhp when designed by Lotus. GM needed to wind the power back because it would compete with the Astra GSi.

There are loads of well designed heads that yield a fair whack of potential power.

C16XE, Vauxhall "redtop", Ford CVH, Peugeot Mi16, Pug/Cit 1.6 VTS spring to mind

Same as the 1.4- Vx invented that nightmare 3 piece-mile-long inlet manifold that strangles both motors whilst still allowing reasonable torque...

Tim..

And that's exactly why I refuse to believe most dyno figures.

Real 'corrected' figure, ffs.

You've just guesstimated a guesstimate.

Well VW stuck in a restrictive inlet manifold and throttle body on the G40 polo to bring the speed down below the 16v Mk2 Golf.

The X series of small block 16v engines aren't as good. The C16XE was the original with slightly better flowing head, then the X14XE 1.4 was introduced as a smaller bored X16XE. I can testify to the potential of these engines as a friend had an X14XE producing 132bhp on a set of R1 carbs.

Do you have any idea of what a corrected figure is?

Without a correction factor which is the real measured totally accurate as produced power in Kw or Hp (just as a ruller measures inches or a volt meter volts) simply corrected to a standard 20 degrees C and 1019 mbars. It means we can directly compare runs done on different days and at different temperatures and pressures as well as altitude.

On a correctly designed dyno the actual standard used (such as DIN 70020 or ISO or ECE or is SAE-J1349 which are all practically identical but by different organisations) is displayed alongside the HP graph axis. Such as HP corrected to DIN 70020. And the actual correction factor value used eg CF: 0.01323 as a typivcal value should also be displayed. And you can choose to display non corrected figures if you prefer. But they are less useful.

EG How can you test a vehicle at sea level on one dyno and then modify it and test it again at say bruntingthorp? Without correcting for absolute barometric and temperature the results cannot be directly compared.

So if a manufacturer claims say 190bhp he must also state the correction factor and the standard and where the measurement was taken. Crank (engine dyno only you CANNOT do this on a chassis dyno. (Although some try because people like bigger numbers but its never correct) Wheels, or a value invented by the marketing department.

Without the above qualifying statements any power figure is totally meaningless.

Erm, yes. Exactly.

Most internet power claims are bullshit, 'cos you have no idea what magical correction figures have been used to make a particular tuner's product look good / give the owner bragging rights.

That wasnt the argument.

You said

And I explained to you exactly why a corrected figure is no guestimate and you cut the rest because you dont like being wrong.

How much porting are we talking? I'm thinking of standard engine, rebuilt, and porting would be with standard valves. OTOH 170BHP would be plenty and would keep costs down - if I were heading for 200 horses, I think I'd prefer the 1.8T route...

Who remaps the VW ECU by the way? I was assuming it'd need a custom ecu in the MK2 or run off the existing Digifant setup, but I've not done much research yet.

Yes, it was.

"Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle would like a word with you"

Despite what you say, unless you have measured the power on a bench and then in the chassis for that particular car, the 'corrected' figure is pissing in the wind.

However, it wouldn't have been good for your business if this was publicised.

Where are you?

Of the top of my head try:

JBS (Chesterfield)

Awesome GTi (Manchester) Jabba (Peterborough) AmD (Essex) Star Performance (Fife)

I think it's just a basic job cleaning up everything and then three angled valve seats, you don't want to open the ports up too much and lose torque.

Yep, don't waste your time with the 16V if you want over 200bhp, just go straight for the 1.8T.

The corrected figure has nothing whatsoever to do with engine or chassis dynos and obviously both cannot be compared. Ans as I already stated you cannot give a flywheel figure on a chassis dyno anyway.

The "corrected figure" only relates to the absolute atmospheric pressure and temperature and both are corrected to a standard pressure of 1019mb and 20 degrees c. I t has nothing whatsoever to do with chassis or engine dynamometer comparisons.

A chassis dyno is just as accurate and measures as ir says rear wheel Hp CORRECTED to a standard pressure and temperature if you want it to. Or not if you dont but thats useless.. This obviously includes all transmission and tyre losses as actually happens on the road.

An ENGINE dyno does exactly the same thing and it too is corrected in the same way. Unless you have a specific reason not to do so. In which case just like a chassis dyno you instruct it not to bother.

Correction factors have absolutely nothing to do with the difference between the two types of dyno or measuring "flywheel" or engine power on a chassis dyno (which is and will remain impossible)

Do you get it yet???

Prey tell me why not? What EXACTLY would you publicise??? This should be fun...

A list of slowish cars and bikes???

I get the total bullshit spouted by people with an interest in producing artificially inflated BHP figures.

But I don't care to argue with anyone tonight.

Strange that. And not a huge surprise since you dont seem to know your arse from your elbow but are very quick to criticise and call me! What with all your knowledge of automotive dynamometers and stuff compared to a man that actually manufactured and designed and sold them...

There are no artificially inflated figures even possible of a decent inertial dyno system like mine or dynojet etc for precicely this reason. The drum mass is always the same as its a known exact size and material and the power required to accelerate it from one revolution to the next is easily calculated from the rotational inertial value. Its simple and pure maths. Every single dyno system I ever sold reads accurately to several decimal places. And there are no user changable parameters that can change this. Any changes in drum size for eg have to be changed by us and the software recompiled and redistributed. And we only ever used 2 drum sizes. One for cars and one for bikes. So two seperate software versioms. No errors. The best you could do would be to see an artificially high figure by about 1 percent if you shoved the air intake temp sensor up your arse to artificially heat it up. Now you may wish to try that but most of the rest of us prefer not to.

Now if I tested your sleep inducing VFR at dawn it would make about 87bhp rear wheel bhp (the last one I tested) on a 20 degrees day at the beach with

1019mb pressure. (we will ignore the effect of humidity at the moment because it has bugger all effect compared to pressure and temp.

Corrected to DIN 70020 or SAE J1349 the two commonly used factors it will still make 87bhp because no correction is required. Since thats what its corrected to.

Now take the same vehicle up the nearest mountain at 2 in the afternoon in summer. Test it again. Same dyno, same bike, lower pressure due to altitude and hotter intake air temp due to heat. Say it now makes 77bhp uncorrected because hot air is less dense. Altitude also reduces pressure so less dense again. The graph now says 77 peak. Which it typically would do. Add the temp and pressure (the correction factor) and suddenly you get your corrected figure back so now the graph reads "corrected" power. All you are doing is making the readings directly comparable. It has absolutely nothing to do with inflated figures. Corrected means just that corrected to standard temp and pressure as used by all (good) dynos everywhere. No tricks, no mystery only your lack of understanding. And it has bugger all to do with chgassis or enfgine dynos or impossible to mwasure flywheel figures on chassis dynos.

See now you DO know.

You worked in the industry, it was in your advantage to make up figures out of thin air.

The bizarre thing about this little spat is that both of you know precisely where the problem is in the dyno industry, viz the deduction of engine BHP from wheel BHP, yet seem to be failing to communicate it to each other...

cheers, clive